She quit without explanation - now new light’s been shed on the resignation of Tasmania’s first Integrity Commission (CEO).

Barbara Etter left her post at the year-old Integrity Commission last month.

The former Western Australian (Assistant) Police Commissioner made her exit while on leave, and ever since, official sources in government have been tight-lipped about her departure.

Airlie Ward joins us: Tonight, you can reveal that Barbara Etter has filed a claim for damages against the State of Tasmania, claiming she was forced to resign.

In a lengthy 10-page statement of claim, the former chief of Tasmania’s anti-corruption watchdog is seeking damages, interest and costs from the state, claiming that the state breached her employment contract.

Mrs Etter claims the state breached her employment contract by undermining her ability to do her job by, among other things, encouraging others including employees at the Integrity Commission to reject her authority and expertise.

Mrs Etter says she was repeatedly frustrated in her attempts to perform her responsibilities and that she was unfairly ambushed with informal performance appraisals which she claimed breached that employment contract.

(Does this explain the sudden nature of her resignation?)

Well, in the document filed with the court, Mrs Etter says she was asked to resign or face an assessment process that - quote - “could be fatal”, contrary, again, to the terms of her contract.

As a result, Mrs Etter is alleging that her reputation has been damaged, as have her career prospects.

So, a strange ending to the first corruption fighter hired by the state government to boost public trust.

The opening of Tasmania’s new Integrity Commission has been put back by three months but its Commissioner Barbara Etter is eager to get started.

ANGELA ROSS, PRESENTER: Tasmania’s newly formed Integrity Commission has hit the headlines again this week this time because its start-up date was postponed.

The Government had been promising it would take complaints by the 1st of July now it will be October.

A Chief Commissioner still hasn’t been found and a board hasn’t been established.

Martin Cuddihy spoke with The Commission’s Chief Executive Barbara Etter about her role with the new body.

MARTIN CUDDIHY, REPORTER: Barbara Etter thanks for joining Stateline.

BARBARA ETTER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, INTEGRITY COMMISSION: Thanks Martin.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Tell me about your background with the police service in Western Australia.

BARBARA ETTER: Well I’ve actually had a career that’s spanned the country. Five and a half, six years with WA police but also with the NSW police, the Northern Territory police and as the director of the Australasian Centre for Policing Research.

So, about 30 years worth of experience.

So, I’ve headed up two professional standards portfolios, both in WA and the NT and more recently three and half years in charge of corruption prevention and investigation with the WA police, which required me to work closely with the CCC.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: What do you think is the aim of the Integrity Commission in Tasmania?

BARBARAETTER: The primary thrust is really one of prevention, education and advice, but clearly there will be a need for complaint assessment and investigation as well.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Now this role won’t be an easy one, why did you decide to take it on?

BARBARA ETTER: I obviously like a challenge but I think I’ve got ideal qualifications and experience to make a difference and to help install that public trust and confidence that is required here in Tasmania.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: You mentioned that public trust and confidence, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong there seems to be an impression in the Tasmanian community that corruption does exist at some levels. What are your initial thoughts?

BARBARA ETTER: Well I think corruption exists in any profession or organisation to a certain extent. Lawyers, doctors, they’ve all been tainted with misconduct and corruption.

I’m certainly coming to Tasmania with a very open mind and I’m in a sort of an intelligence information gathering phase at the present time.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Is it your impression though that the community does feel that there is some level of corruption here?

BARBARA ETTER: Well I don’t think they would have established an Integrity Commission if they weren’t concerned about the level of trust and confidence within the community.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Do you think it will be easy to allay those concerns?

BARBARA ETTER: I think it will be a challenge but certainly one that I’m very keen, I’m very keen on community engagement, getting the message out, increasing ethical awareness, ethical sensitivity.

But also it’s not a matter of picking off individuals one by one, it’s a matter of looking at some of the public institutions and attacking systems and culture.

It’s not generally just a bad apple, there’s some reason why corruption’s been allowed to flourish.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: You mentioned there what do you mean by that?

BARBARA ETTER: Oh well, organisational reviews, for example, is one idea I have at the present time. Where we go in and using methodologies that have been used elsewhere, check out the ethical health of an organisation and the culture and the systems.

What ethics training do they have? How are they handling complaints and issues of misconduct or external complaints?

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Now the commission has a broad range of powers including search and seizure of documents and computers and also surveillance and listening devices.

How will this work be carried out?

BARBARA ETTER: Well we’ll be getting skilled and experienced investigators to work and obviously we’ll have to work within the legislative framework and take a cautious and considered approach to the use of those sorts of powers.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: Do you suspect that they’ll be used widely?

BARBARA ETTER: Ah, a bit early to tell, depends on what comes through the door when we open soon and also what own motion investigations we may take on.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: What was your reaction when you found out and I presume it was this week that the commission won’t receive those complaints until October?

BARBARA ETTER: I can understand the need to take a bit of time to make sure everything is in place that we can deal with those complaints properly when they do arrive at the commission.

It’s not just a matter of saying, ‘We’re open for business.’ The act says that the complaint has to be made in writing in a form approved by the board and of course that has not been done yet, nor has the complaint register been approved by the board and you need to have popper, proper policies and procedures in place and staff who are trained in complaint assessment.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: But what was your personal reaction when you heard that it would be delayed by several months?

BARBARA ETTER: I understood the situation entirely, I’m glad actually that I’ve got a bit of time to recruit the right staff and get everything in place, get the premises finished, so that we can be fully functional on 1 October.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: You’re looking forward to the point when that happens I presume?

Whistleblowers Tasmania are calling on the Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings to suspend the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.

Whistleblowers Tasmania spokesperson Isla MacGregor said “Whistleblowers Tasmania are gravely concerned about the crisis over the Tasmanian Integrity Commission as a result of Barbara Etter’s allegations outlined in the writ tended to the Supreme Court.

It is our view that the Premier must suspend the Tasmanian Integrity Commission as these allegations, and lack of powers, have led the Tasmanian community to have no confidence in our first anti-corruption watchdog.

Given Barbara Etters complaints, Whistleblowers Tasmania would not advise any would be whistleblowers to take a complaint to the TIC especially in the current climate of drastic cutbacks in the public sector.

Tasmanians had the opportunity to push for an ICAC style organisation in Tasmania to investigate corruption but failed to utilise the experience from other states especially in relation to powers.

The view that several legal experts held during the debate to establish the TIC that any anti-corruption body would do to start with, was misguided.

Had we developed legislation for a proper Tasmanian Anti-corruption Commission, backed by strong Whistleblower Protection laws, Barbara Etter would not have to take her case through the courts as external, independent investigative options for internal complaints from within the watchdog would be available.

The fact that Barbara Etter having worked within an inquisitorial investigative body, now has to take her own complaint through an adversarial legal process poses the usual questions about whether or not the full truth will come to light through the courts.

Barbara Etter’s case adds to the list of watchdogs in Tasmania who have left or lost their positions. Dr Jocelyn Scutt, former Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Patmalar Ambikapathy and Paul Mason former Children’s Commissioners.

As the public sector is being subject to more and more staff cuts it is vital that individuals’ professional ethics do not become totally subjugated to maintaining ones employment at all costs.

Given the mounting evidence against the effectiveness and integrity of the TIC, the Premier should take action and suspend the TIC.” said Isla MacGregor

“Friends” of the Integrity Commission (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) are collecting together examples of the many inappropriate responses received back from the Integrity Commission and are keen to forward more on to Four Corners at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/contact/

We are an apolitical organisation aiming to have the Tasmanian Integrity Commission perform as the majority of Tasmanians would wish it to.

If any readers would be willing to share the complaint and response letters that they might have, these would be handled by us in the strictest of confidence. Alternatively perhaps, provide them directly to Four Corners yourself at their contact webpage shown above.

The volume of complaint material and the Integrity Commission’s various reasons given for not investigating, will assist Four Corners to expose the truth regarding our current Integrity Commission.

When the extremely experienced and credentialled head of a newly formed State ‘Integrity Commission’ has alleged she was forced out of her job because she was unhappy with being hamstrung from doing that very job, there is something deeply deeply wrong.

The worm turns.

Surely, a Royal Commission thoroughly investigating the Tasmanian Government is now not just a necessity, but essential, and this is the catalyst?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 21/11/11 at 07:22 PM

It was always farcical that there was basically no mainstream media investigation into a major story as to why the head of a state corruption watchdog would unexpectedly and without apparent reason, suddenly quit. Hats off to TT and Airlie Ward but no Walkley Award for the likes of The Mockery or Exaggerator. Can someone explain what qualification is required before someone can describe themselves as a journalist,.. or even reporter?

Posted by dan of db on 21/11/11 at 07:48 PM

I trust Ms Etter will not be so trusting as to pursue her statement of claim against the State Government through what masquerades as the legal system in Tasmania?

The very notion of the ‘separation of powers’ is a concept utterly foreign to the workings of Tas Inc.

Posted by Bob McMahon on 21/11/11 at 07:51 PM

Q.E.D.

Posted by Stephen Jeffery on 21/11/11 at 07:54 PM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or, when do we get an Integrity Commission to investigate the Integrity Commission?

Posted by Mike Adams on 21/11/11 at 07:56 PM

‘constructive dismissal’ is a beautiful thing

Posted by russell on 21/11/11 at 08:10 PM

Out here in the NW in the misty night on the back ridges of banjo country, if you listen quietly you can hear the puckering of nervous sphincters in Hobart.

All power to Barbara Etter’s arm, and when she has finished can we please have a Royal Commision with no areas fenced off. This is the last time I will use the please word with that request.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 21/11/11 at 09:08 PM

I think Barbara Etter is an extremely courageous lady. As a former assistant police commissioner should would have been aware that organised crime is like an octopus.

I told the Jim Wilkinson parliamentary committee that the real honey pot in Tasmania is not trees but poppies. Organised crime will move in that direction and because of that we need a real ICAC with teeth, claws and phone tapping powers.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 21/11/11 at 09:24 PM

#5 - I believe journalists differ from cadets in the print media, one only has to have a basic year 12 English pass as a cadet inductee, and there you are, stories published in mainstream media, it’s like a kindergarten for newspapers, saves them money. Like banning milk from the coffee machines in the Examiner office. I really can’t understand why the “collective brain power” of the TT does not contain any mainstream journalists, the TT does a fantastic job, all the guys are qualified journalists and deserve a chance in mainstream media. I’d say an integrity commission hearing into this subject would have helped the poor misunderstood writers of TT?

Posted by Brett Lucas on 21/11/11 at 10:00 PM

#5, Dan: Rosemary Bolger from the Examiner certainly was very keen to track down the real reasons for Barbara Etter’s resignation. Just wanted to contribute that item of info though please don’t interpret that as a defence of the Examiner—just a statement of fact.

Posted by Grant Hawley on 21/11/11 at 10:47 PM

One expects Etter, as a former high ranking police officer, to have integrity and therfore to have taken the complaints made seriously.

When she resigned it could have been for other personal reasons, although that is usually stated.

Let us hope the evidence of her claims is there and the Courts are not as crook with one of their own as Hayward claims.

But if Hayward is right it is a hiding to nowhere with plenty of juice if there are any journalists left.

The Pulp Mill Legislation , the list just goes on. and lurking in the back ground “Big Red “.

The biggest Royal Commission ever please , starting from the Rouse Royal Commission 1990.

Posted by Basil Fitch on 22/11/11 at 05:20 AM

Would the recent resignation of Integrity Commission investigator Dr Louise Clery have been for related reasons to Dr Etter’s?

Posted by John Marriot on 22/11/11 at 05:22 AM

Why am I not suprised. It was the child premier after all who said we don’t need an ICAC. She didn’t want a commission that had real teeth, as we have been told many times.
“there is no organised corruption in Tasmania”
I wrote that on my blackboard 50 times before dinner but somehow it still doesn’t make me feel any better.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 22/11/11 at 06:24 AM

#8 “Constructive dismissal is a beautiful thing”. The concept of constructive dismissal may well be a beautiful thing and in the UK it frequently is. Constructive dismissal exists where dismissed employees can show that they resigned or were forced to quit due to unreasonable pressure, intolerable demands or the unethical behaviour of their employer.

However, in Tasmania it will have to remain a thing of abstract beauty at least for the time being because the concept does not exist in law. In my opinion and I know several leading trade unionists who agree it should be written into our industrial law and one day hopefully it will be but until that day its beauty will remain and abstract and as you say “beautiful concept”.

Posted by bazzabee on 22/11/11 at 07:12 AM

Royal Commission now…and while they are at it throw in a few PAC Inquiries.

Posted by Ian Rist on 22/11/11 at 07:14 AM

Barbara Etter’s interview with Martin Cuddihy in July 2010 says it all.

She had to go - one way or the other - because Ms Etter was talking ethics and common sense!

Etter: “Well I think corruption exists in any profession or organisation to a certain extent. Lawyers, doctors, they’ve all been tainted with misconduct and corruption.”

“...it’s a matter of looking at some of the public institutions and attacking systems and culture. It’s not generally just a bad apple, there’s some reason why corruption’s been allowed to flourish.”

“What ethics training do they have? How are they handling complaints and issues of misconduct or external complaints?”

“...check out the ethical health of an organisation and the culture and the systems.”

How sick does Tasmania have to get before this corrupt island of renowned for its mendacity finally dies and ... is reborn!

Welcome to Taz-mania!

Posted by David Obendorf on 22/11/11 at 07:28 AM

The Bryan Green trial: The guilty but not guilty verdict when there was obviously stupidity, poor judgement, pay back and mateship deals involved with the TCC saga. As Deputy Premier Bryan Green resides over us today as if nothing happened.
Lennon while under Gunns control committed the ultimate lowest of acts by switching the Pulp Mill assessment process to suit the governments outcome for Gunns and not for the best interest of the general public.
Hopefully Mrs Etter can at least reveal all that is wrong in this failed state under Labor so at least we have a chance to make better political judgement “next time”.

Posted by Robin Halton on 22/11/11 at 07:37 AM

It is unfortunate Tasmania failed to have established a proper Tasmanian Anti-corruption Commission.

One can only hope that Barbara Etter’s case is not settled out of court with a confidentiality clause. The court case will be most revealing.

The TIC should be scrapped forthwith.

Posted by Isla MacGregor on 22/11/11 at 08:09 AM

The fools of TasInc have overstepped their cleverness by taking on a true and experienced professional. There is enough known about the process and practice of constructive dismissal for the tasinc incompetents to be bought into the open. Like all forms of workplace bullying, getting the perpetrators into the open is a first step. Bullying usually is only successful by way of keeping it hidden and with threats of retaliation. Clearly the tasinc types have never dealt with a true, smart and professional operator like they have this time. The beauty of it is the perps usually provide enough evidence to hang themselves.

Posted by russell on 22/11/11 at 08:14 AM

The Tasmanian Integrity Commission (TIC) has proven to be an abject failure and total sham and must be replaced by a fully independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) based upon the NSW model, although with the inclusion of jurisdiction over the police force. In particular, there should be no place for present board members such as the Auditor-General, Ombudsman and Acting State Service Commissioner.

Furthermore, all present and past submissions should be reviewed by an independent body or person from outside the State as Tasmanians have no confidence in any aspect of the TIC.

The following extract from the ICAC website summarises the main issue which requires to be addressed urgently.

To operate as Parliament intended and to ensure community confidence is maintained, the ICAC is both independent and accountable.

The ICAC is independent in that its operations, including investigations, are not subject to the direction of politicians, bureaucrats, any political party, or the government. Unlike most other publicly funded organisations, the ICAC is not responsible to a Government Minister. This independence is essential for the public to have confidence that the ICAC is not biased or subject to the dictates of the government of the day.

Under the ICAC Act and other legislation, the ICAC is given special powers, which in some respects exceed those given to the police, to perform its investigative functions.

The ICAC Act confers significant powers and discretion on the Commissioner and ICAC staff. Given these extensive powers, it is important that there is a comprehensive accountability framework in place to ensure the ICAC’s powers are not abused and that it meets its legislative responsibilities. There are a number of accountability mechanisms in place as well as reporting requirements, the ICAC’s Code of Conduct, service commitment and freedom of information provisions.

Posted by PB on 22/11/11 at 08:52 AM

I wonder how long it took Ms Etter to realise that “Tasmanian Integrity Commission” is an oxymoron, and a proper subject for investigation itself.

Tasmanians are now left with the stark choice of deciding between Ms Etter or Tas Inc as to who possesses integrity. Judging from recent history, my bet is that it will cost the govt a packet to induce her to go quietly.

You go girl, and we pray you can get your case out of Tas jurisdiction.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 22/11/11 at 09:19 AM

West Australian, Barbara Etter, is seeking damages, interest and costs, alleging her reputation and career prospects have been damaged - Danger folks, this could open the flood-gates to anyone from interstate.

Do it for every Tasmanian whose been screwed over by successive Tasmanian Governments

Posted by Squizzy on 22/11/11 at 09:39 AM

Agree David O.

Anyone who hasnt taken a few minutes out to watch the Etter Stateline interview should. Quite poignant.

Posted by Pilko on 22/11/11 at 10:13 AM

#21 It may well be the case that there was “stupidity, poor judgement, pay back ... involved with the TCC” but I for one thank the good lord that such human failings are not and I hope never will be illegal because if they were then the jails would be even more full than they are today.

Posted by bazzabee on 22/11/11 at 10:27 AM

I’m really interested in Barbara Etter’s statement of claim and have just rung the Supreme Court public inquiry number, 6233 6385.

The female public servant said, “Who are you?”. When I asked why, she told me not to be rude.

She said the document was not available online.

You could view it at the Court - up the stairs from Salamanca, turn left. Hours 9-5.

No copies to be made.

Unhelpful to say the least ...

Posted by Peter on 22/11/11 at 10:29 AM

29; Fair point bazzabee, but it’s hardly desirable material for a Deputy Premier to have on his CV.
On the other hand, perhaps it is. This is Tasmania after all!

Posted by Steve on 22/11/11 at 10:56 AM

With a little luck this disgustingly politically morally bankrupt state will be at last exposed. Ms Etter is clearly not going to allow them to get away with it. I hope, like Isla, that this goes to court and is not made secret. As I am also waiting for my day in court with these people, I watch with interest. My most pressing reason for this is the strong desire for the people to hear the truth about what really happens behind the scenes,not the untruthful “spin” they read in the media and see on the televisin.
Kay Selltitzas

Posted by Kay Seltitzas on 22/11/11 at 11:06 AM

The only problem I see with this is if she wins her case, it will just be the tax payers again that have to foot the bill, A much better way would be to leak all information that was made available to ICAC (Including names) onto the Internet in a way that it can’t be censored!

Posted by Mike on 22/11/11 at 12:21 PM

re 29. I count stupidity, poor judgement and payback amongst my many shortcomings. I am also absolutely sure that should I ever be privelleged to hold public office I would have the integrity to ensure that my decision making was not based on those shortcomings and I would fully expect to be punished severely if I allowed otherwise.
There are good reasons why such failings are punished in the real world when they impact on public administration. Not least of those is a desire to prevent outright acts of bastardry from those in power.
Meanwhile, back in Tasmania…....

Posted by Simon Warriner on 22/11/11 at 12:48 PM

Look out Lara and especially Bryan, State Labor has shot themselves in the foot by setting up their own Integrity Commission to watch over the political matters.
The De-Etterification process could be the end of this government once and for all.

Posted by Robin Halton on 22/11/11 at 02:04 PM

Re #33
I don’t see any problem with footing the bill if it intitiates a Royal Commission. It will cost us a hell of a lot less than doing nothing and I hope it will serve to deter the wankers in Hobart from conducting themselves this way any longer.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 22/11/11 at 03:07 PM

I too hope that all is revealed to the public. I have tried to rely on accountability on many levels - Local Government, Ombudsman and then finally the Integrity Commission - Alas the word “accountable” has no meaning in the Tasmanian vocabulary! Good luck with your quest for Justice Barbara Etter because the rest of us are unable to gain any from within this state! All this state is capable of doing is destroying the people that reside in our picturesque little state, as they embark on their never ending quest to see Justice prevail! One can only hope that we all see our complaints with the Integrity Commission reviewed, the complainants interviewed properly and all from a body from outside of our corrupt little state!

Posted by Suzi Burge on 22/11/11 at 03:27 PM

#31 Your point that it is “hardly desirable material for a Deputy Premier to have on his CV” is well taken and I fully agree that any minister who fully understood and more importantly accepted his/her responsibilities under the Westminster system would have done the right thing and resigned before the first trial.

Regrettably the Westminster system of government is honored across Australia more in the breech than the observance.

We only have to look across to Victoria where The Office of Police Integrity recently accused Government adviser Tristan Weston of instigating the plot with others to overthrow the Commissioner of Police Simon Overland. The Baillieu government has rejected calls for an independent appointment process and a review of the Commissioner’s sacking. The Deputy Premier and Minister of Police Peter Ryan simply washed his hands of the whole sordid affair even though it had been planned and run from within his own office.

Finding other examples across all parties, states even at the heart of past Federal governments, John Howard’s government was replete with examples where he supported failed ministers who had refused to accept any responsibility for either their own or their staffs wrong doing and mistakes.

Posted by bazzabee on 22/11/11 at 04:29 PM

What is all this fuss about a bit of corruption? Tasmanians have proved time and time again that they like their political leaders to be a bit dodgy in the integrity department.

We live in a democracy. If the majority prefer a crooked politician to an honest one, why shouldn’t they get their wish?

Posted by Justa Bloke on 22/11/11 at 05:03 PM

#39, Comment challenged and deleted.

Posted by Ben Moore on 22/11/11 at 06:01 PM

It is becoming clear that “Integrity Commission” should be interpreted the same way in Tas that “Corruption Commission” is in other states - as identifying the practice they are respectively trying to eliminate.

And I like #29’s description of corruption as a “human failing”, while the same folks are demanding jail for anti-logging protestors.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 22/11/11 at 06:04 PM

Refer to #24 totally agree, but you have to consider the conflict of interest if you are going to fully investigate Tasmania Police you cannot have a retired Police Office Luppo Prins to sit on the Integrity Board. For the new ICAC please do not bother to have another line of Ethics committee hearings under Chairman Jim Wilkinson. I believe he should resign considering his history, he has made a mess of the fox task force and now TIC ...

Posted by suzzette Holloway on 22/11/11 at 06:49 PM

38; “Breach”? That said, I like the way you’re thinking!

Posted by Steve on 22/11/11 at 09:06 PM

It was a Four Corners story that put corrupt Queensland in the spotlight, with the subsequent Fitzgerald Inquiry.

Plainly, it is Tasmania’s turn.

The “Friends of the Integrity Commission” have the right idea. The Four Corners team will need evidence. Hopefully they will find enough for several entertaining episodes.

Posted by AnnoyingO on 23/11/11 at 12:21 AM

I believe that there was another commissioner alongside Ms. Etter,Father Tate from Sandy Bay. What does he have to say about this freshly opened can of worms.It’s a fact that subtle corruption begins at a very low level in Tasmania and it just goes on from there.

Posted by Philip Lowe on 23/11/11 at 03:17 AM

An interesting list of names can be compiled of those persons holding high office, who claim there is no corruption in this State.

The Chairman of our TIC Mr Murray Kellam quite recently had the audacity to proclaim that Tasmania has no real corruption issues to be concerned about, then abruptly we were to see the hastened departure of the well respected former Assistant Police Commissioner from Western Australia, resign her post as CEO of our Tasmanian Integrity Commission, then not long after the departure of one of its investigation officers also?

Serious questions linger in the minds of Tasmanians as to the actual bona fides and integrity held in the now toothless Integrity Commission under the Chairmanship of another former Supreme Court identity?
An enormous amount of State revenues have been poured into this Commission to see that its only real claim to fame, is the losing of the services of arguably 2 of its most respected authoritive figures.

Posted by William Boeder on 23/11/11 at 07:05 AM

The very serious part of Barbara Etter’s statement of claim is the report that her statement contained - what Airlie Ward, ABC Reporter read out on the Monday 20 October ABC1 News Bulletin.

‘... the document filed with the court, Mrs Etter says she was asked to resign or face an assessment process that - quote - “could be fatal”, ...’

If there is clear evidence that a person made such a statement to Ms Etter, it amounts to a threat to kill.

It is also reported that Ms Etter took leave and left the State prior to formally resigning as CEO of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission.

Very serious… but the State has too much too lose here… they will settle out of court and Taz-mania’s corruption caravan will move on.

Posted by David Obendorf on 23/11/11 at 07:42 AM

Re #47
“Very serious… but the State has too much too lose here… they will settle out of court and Taz-mania’s corruption caravan will move on.”

Well, I hope that she has the integrity that the Integrity Commission doesn’t, and she follows right through with this. Especially when she has the necessary experience, qualifications and probably outside support to do so.

It must be stopped, and this is the most perfect opportunity Tasmania has ever had to achieve it and finally leave the corrupt past and its beneficiaries behind for good (especially with all the other incredibly destructive Government induced issues culminating at the same time).

Posted by Russell Langfield on 23/11/11 at 08:27 AM

David @ 47, if she settles out of court her integrity will be irrepairably damaged. She is arguing that her treatment damaged her reputation and future employment prospects. To cave in and accept payment would be to leave the job she was hired to do, namely exposing corruption in the government of Tasmania, completely undone. If she goes to court, names names and exposes the corrupt she will have restored her reputation as a fearless anti-corruption watchdog.
If she just takes the money and retires she is no better than a guard dog that takes the steak and goes back to its kennel, leaving the thieves free to roam at will. Her future prospects and reputation in that instance are not well served, are they? I suspect, and sincerely hope, for all our sakes that she is made of much sterner stuff.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 23/11/11 at 08:58 AM

#45 Philip, Father Tate from the Sandy Bay Parish should be worried that he could lose his position as Political Oversight Guidance Officer once the De Etterification process throws up more of the non transparent practices forced onto and existing within the Integrity Commission!
Mrs Etter is well within her rights to have taken the action that she has deemed necessary seeking damages for what she claims was her forced resignation!
The public is entitled to know the full circumstances.
If it is proven that Mrs Etter was unable to establish due to government interference proper performence criteria and to clearly define job roles then pity help the future of the Integrity Commission.
I was never keen on the idea of a Catholic priest being given a role on the Commission, however with “politics aside” Father Tate’s evidence too could be crucial too as there are claims that the Government “unfairly ambushed” her with an informal performance appraisal outside the terms of her contract.
One would expect honesty from a man of the cloth!
It is on the cards that the current Integrity Commission is unable to perform its job and may be totally disbanded.

Posted by Robin Halton on 23/11/11 at 10:22 AM

The following passage of words fell from the pen of Mr Aleksandr I Solzhenitsyn. they may apply to the present construct of Tasmania’s Failing Integrity Commission.

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not
simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag; Archipelago:;

May this man of Russia have many more passages of reference applicable to the life and times of tyrannous government and its associated bodies here in Tasmania.

Posted by William Boeder on 23/11/11 at 10:24 AM

Re #47 the use of the term “fatal” is clearly metaphorical, suggesting potential termination of employment rather than actual killing. There is also no indication at this stage that the term was used to Barbara Etter as opposed to being her own rather dramatic description of the potential consequences of the assessment process.

My view on the matter as a whole: I thought the IC was a dubious idea when it was set up as such bodies can easily become too powerful and too difficult to hold to account should they become corrupt or vindictive themselves. It appears possible (on various fronts) that what Labor wanted was not an Integrity Commission as such, but rather the popular appearance of having an Integrity Commission, and it is hard to say whether that is really better or worse.

Re #42 in considering Wilkinson’s performance regarding the fox JSPCA Inquiry it should be kept in mind that (i) the terms of reference primarily concerned effectiveness of eradication measures, rather than presence/absence (ii) the committee included Ivan Dean and there is no publicly available indication that its findings were anything but unanimous.

Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 23/11/11 at 11:43 AM

Perhaps I am just cynical but maybe the commission was not set up to catch miscreants but to act as an early warning radar to these miscreants. Nah, surely not in clean green Tasmania.

Posted by Rod on 23/11/11 at 12:21 PM

Re #52
Nevertheless, Kevin, it was a blatant “threat” no matter which way you chose to look at it and whoever made the “threat” should be hauled before Fair Work Australia.

I would agree entirely that all along “what Labor wanted was not an Integrity Commission as such, but rather the popular appearance of having an Integrity Commission.”

Re #55, the use of quote marks does not at all clearly indicate that those words were conveyed to Barbara Etter. The quote is stated as being from a “document filed with the court” by Etter. There is no indication that those words are not Etter’s as used in that filed document.

“The defendant unreasonably and without good cause invited the plaintiff to resign or alternatively face a performance assessment process which could be fatal,” her claim says.”

- the words are from Etter’s claim document but are not Etter’s document quoting someone else. As such #47 is completely erroneous. And do you really think Etter is literally claiming that the performance assessment process would have killed her?

Re #54 we’re not even at that stage yet. We have a claim of a threat, but that claim has not been tested by due process to determine whether a threat was actually made.

Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 23/11/11 at 10:06 PM

Re #40: I’m not happy that you have deleted my comment there. Knowing what it was, it appears to me that TT is becoming a bit too repressive regarding expression of views. Why not let Indipol just argue its countercase or clarify? I stand by my comment there. I don’t believe any perceived slur was all that damaging to their reputation. Simply, they are an (unincorporated-as-yet) group who are still setting out and no doubt are finding their feet as yet. Doubtless they’ll put a foot “wrong” and one such instance of that, I’ve made mention of.

Posted by Ben Moore. on 24/11/11 at 06:45 AM

#44: Thank you very much for that endorsement of our concept! We believe FOTIC has considerable potential for lobbying to achieve a properly working Integrity Commission within Tasmania, provided the voting public can be made aware of what we currently have and how it should change, e.g. via media coverage such as a Four Corners documentary.

We’re very careful when spelling out our name to where possible ensure the quotes go around the word “Friends”. Don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea, namely that FOTIC possibly supports the current implementation of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission !

Posted by Gareth Stebbins on 24/11/11 at 06:56 AM

I notice we’‘re all quick to judge Tas Inc harshly while defending Barbara Etter. She was hired knowingly by Tas Inc, and we have no reason to think she’s cut from anything but the same cloth. We heard nothing from her or the ICT for a year, she leaves and all we hear is she wants money in lieu of reputation and is prepared to resign rather than have her work assessed (we all should be able to afford such options!).
We need more information. Why hasn’t the open and transparent ICT said anything? Why hasn’t Barbara Etter? This doesn’t fill me with confidence in her, the ICT or the state govt.

#54. Russell I find in the latter half of your comment as to Tasmania having an institution such as our present TIC contains a certain heft of the truth in it.(albeit in name only,) then the waving of this about- as if this be the great salvation for all due process failures, ministerial malfeasance’s, departmental deficiencies etc, that seem to be our lot in Tasmania.
In fact Mr Murray Kellam as much as admitted that the role of the TIC was more of an instructive teaching institution for ministers and Public Servants than a “hunt down the bad guys” investigative and or disciplining institution.

We Tasmanians were led to believe that we would have the latter, though now we have something quite useless and in which it is proving itself to be nought but a further expensive imposition to have thrust upon the scant revenues held by this State government..

Ben Moore: Some factual basis to respond to your inaccurate comment at 40. It was I who challenged it and I did so on the following grounds:

1 I was the person who came up with the name Indipol, and I did so some eight months ago, not before the last election. Prior to that there was nothing more than a vague idea in my head which I had very briefly and very casually discussed with some MLC’s over a period of two years.

2 There is not yet an organisation by that name, but I have applied for it as a trademark. I did so immediately after requesting your post be deleted due to its inaccurate and damaging nature.

3 The accusation that this putative organisation would engage in attempting to shape an independent candidates policies is to display a comprehensive ignorance of the idea behind indipol. To do such a thing would rightly be an anathema to any independent candidate. At the only meeting so far held by those supporting the indipol concept I was abundantly clear on this point and have argued it several times since with people who had trouble coming to terms with it.

Based on the above, I can assure Ben Moore, whoever he is, that if anyone tried to influence any independent candidate at the last election it is was not under the guise of the Indipol banner.

Unless of course there is another indipol out there, but his last para suggests otherwise. Ben Moore is the one whose foot is very much in the wrong place.

I suggest that Ben Moore goes back to his source and digs a little deeper, and stops making baseless accusations. I also expect an apology for the baseless accusations made.

Re: Dr. Kevin Bonham! Obviously you haven’t seen what these people have seen and haven’t been where these people have been. This State is in trouble! Largely due to the people that are running it! I have seen what these people have seen and been where these people have been and I don’t like it one little bit!

Posted by Suzi Burge on 24/11/11 at 06:46 PM

Re #59
The doubts about the TIC were there before it even started because it was going to Government hand-picked and known not to have any real powers. They were touted ‘to teach politicians manners.’

Regarding Ms Etter’s silence, she probably can’t comment because of the legal action.

Re #62
I don’t know, Ed. If I knew what you deleted it might help. You tell me for a change. I don’t know why you don’t post it. Most of the time when I do remember what im posted, it seems so petty I’m left scratching my head. Maybe it’s the moon?

Posted by Russell Langfield on 24/11/11 at 07:43 PM

It completely escapes me how #65 is supposed to reflect on anything I’ve said in my two comments to this thread, which have been mainly concerned with correcting implausible (and now debunked) claims about the source and meaning of the comment “could be fatal”.

Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 24/11/11 at 07:53 PM

Can I ask #67 as you describe everyone else - what you are a Doctor of? Maybe that might help everyone understand your comments?

Posted by Suzi Burge on 24/11/11 at 10:30 PM

Re #63, Really need to have my original comment which was at #40 put on display for further discussion to be coherent to TT readers. I think the tone of #63 further bears out my assessment made at #57 that TT’s comment censorship is becoming too repressive. I can’t even get my comment put on display and all it basically stated, possibly not quite completely accurately, was that one can’t assume rednecks like Pauline Hanson are misguided to have the policies they do, if it gets them more votes.

I’d really like to see my readers comment reinstated at #40. In my opinion, when read alongside #63, the whole lot might cast some further light on Simon Warriner. As to just what, I’ll leave that for the reader to decide.

Posted by Ben Moore on 25/11/11 at 08:13 AM

Re #68… Suzi, the answer i believe is Malacology, better known as the study of snails. I guess it somewhat fits in considering the amount of slimy and sluggish creatures in power in Tasmania.

Posted by Megan Tatham on 25/11/11 at 10:02 AM

Re 69, Ben, not completely accurate? Your intial claim was completely inacurate, and fundamentally impossible. It was on that basis that I challenged it.
The concept of Indipol allows for all views to be expressed, even the objectionable ones. That is democracy. The line gets drawn when you start throwing around accusations that are factually incorrect, and impossible.

I note your latest post does not mention that your initial post accused Indipol of attempting to influence an independent political operators policies, which directly contradicts what Indipol is about.
If my acting to protect the publics veiw of the Indipol concept says anything about my character other than a desire to see truth prevail, so be it. I will, as you suggest, let the reader decide.
Linz, to be fair to Ben, and our audience, please post his impossible and completely inacurate claim as to Indipol’s alleged action. (Ed: It’s already residing in alpha centarui. Ben would have to resubmit).</b>

In the spirit of fair play which Ben is invoking it would be informative for the audience to know Ben’s relationship to the candidate mentioned, how he became aware of the attempt to influence her policy, and why he has placed this issue in the arena 2 days after the circulation amongst a group of interested individuals of documents pertaining to the formation of some formal structure for Indipol. It would also be interesting to know in what capacity Ben is engaging in this conversation and any relationships he has with political parties.

As this has strayed far enough off the thread topic this is my last post on this topic here. Over to you Ben, and I am sure the audience will draw their own conclusions based on your initial post, and replies to these questions or the lack thereof.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 25/11/11 at 10:12 AM

What is this—TT Inc? I submit my readers comment and it is taken down at Simon Warriner’s request, not to be reinstateable even when Simon Warriner says this is to happen.

Clearly TT’s comment censorship regime has become too repressive. What ever happened to the “Tasmanian Times is a forum of discussion and dissent - a cheeky, irreverent challenge to the mass media’s obsession with popularity, superficiality and celebrity” ?????

Posted by ben moore on 25/11/11 at 11:06 AM

#68, from a quick Google search it appears he studies invertebrate ecology. I guess that means worms, snails, politicians etc…

Posted by Mike on 25/11/11 at 11:33 AM

Re #68, for the record, when describing a post by its post number in that fashion I am thus describing the post and its contents and not the author. Thus “Re #68” means “regarding post 68”. Quite different to another poster’s pet usage “Commentator #68”.

While it has absolutely no relevance to understanding my comments, my doctorate concerned the biogeography and taxonomy of Tasmanian native land snails, but prior to that I acquired a degree in political science and philosophy, and another in environmental studies.

Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 25/11/11 at 11:59 AM

I’m wondering if Tassie’s problems could be sorted out by an official semanticist who could determine if “fate” invariably means “death”, or could possibly pertain in a broader sense to “destiny”, including the popular usages of the word to mean “outcome”.

I wouldn’t dare challenge a malacologist in this score, but think a second opinion would be reasonable.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 25/11/11 at 05:28 PM

Re #75 nobody is even talking about “fate”; the word in question is “fatal”. And nobody was talking about malacology either before an irrelevant question in #68. For all you know my opinion that Dr Obendorf had misconstrued the phrase could have been my view as a former professional editor! There is no point in silly mischief-making, trolling or trying to play down the range of my relevant knowledge here, as Dr O was obviously wrong as demonstrated in #56 and has been unable to refute that post.

Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 25/11/11 at 08:53 PM

John Hayward 75.One of the troubles with Tassie is that there are too many official onanists,
and bloody highly paid ones at that.

Posted by Philip Lowe on 26/11/11 at 03:08 AM

Our problem here is that we have complaints about organisations (government) that have gone before the “Integrity Commission” that may have been wrongfully dismissed - based on “not enough Justifiable resources etc.” or the fact that Barbara Etter was not allowed to do the job she was entrusted to do? Nothing more and nothing less! What has happened as a result of her not being able to do her job must come out publicly and our complaints must be dealt with by an independant “Mainland Body”!!! We are only asking for justice! I don’t think that is too much to ask in this day and age???

Posted by Suzi Burge on 26/11/11 at 10:40 PM

Further to the call by the people of Tasmania seeking some form of investigative body or perhaps even an ICAC, in order to delve into many of the past seemingly suspicious high office appointments, State government decisions, poorly considered government policies, the endless number of “Commercial in Confidence” references to each and all GBE activities, claims of bold corruption within the State’s GBEs, then too the situations that have ministers denying any knowledge of matters held within their port folios, etc.
For example I suggest the most recent shambles concerning “the closed shop goings-on with Tote Tasmania”: (another GBE) specifically referring to the timing of the $5,000,000 (was it a cash injection,) loan by Tasmania’s Tote and quickly approved by their somewhat carefree board of directors, so urgently sought by the Betting Agency of Sports Alive?
The latest news concerning Sports Alive is that police and fraud squad detectives are seriously concerned and are investigating the audit processes of Sports Alive, as to the claims they were then “trading while insolvent,” and were at that same time engaged in securing the aforesaid $5,000,000-00 Tasmanian dollars, ostensibly to help keep the Sports Alive Agency alive and more able to continue trading.

I believe the forces of ASIC are also looking into breaches of trust and so on, of this Sports Alive/Tote Tasmania stink-bomb?

This is the sort of “closed-loop/cloaked over” State government GBE behaviour which is exactly that which has Tasmania’s people demanding be investigated, though apparently “not by our toothless disinterested State regulatory body” of our Tasmanian Integrity Commission.

Do recall how both our State Governor and his former justice colleague, (Commissioner Mr Murray Kellam,) were quick deny that government corruption exists in Tasmania?

Posted by William Boeder on 27/11/11 at 09:06 AM

I don’t think Tasmania has the resources to fund an ICAC - even though we need one. Nor do I think it is possible to have an independent watchdog operating under any Tasmanian state govt. Tasmania is just not the sort of place where people with honesty or integrity prosper. It’s been run by a small cadre of thugs and cowards for far too long. The peasants think its normal. But perhaps we could afford to hire a mainland ICAC (a bit like funding Hawthorn!) to provide a bit of the necessary culture shock we have to have.

Comment #61 said the ICT was intended as an instructive teaching institution for ministers and Public Servants. Well I’m a public servant and haven’t heard of anything happening in that regard either. And I’m interested. The ICTs sad little website has a Code of Conduct for Ministers report, but apart from needing a good proofreading says nothing of any interest to anyone.

So they haven’t instructed anyone and they haven’t found any corruption. What have they been doing?

Posted by Moriarty on 29/11/11 at 07:45 AM

re 80, What are they doing? Exactly what our premier wants them to do. Absolutely nothing. That’s why Barbara Etter had to go.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 29/11/11 at 08:22 AM

Re #80
“But perhaps we could afford to hire a mainland ICAC (a bit like funding Hawthorn!) to provide a bit of the necessary culture shock we have to have.”

Exactly, and I believe the federal Government should fund it to take it completely out of the Tasmania’s hands.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 29/11/11 at 08:33 AM

Re #82 Couldn’t agree more. Perhaps we should take Tasmania out of Tasmania’s hands. The only thing holding the place back is the people running it. The gap between Tassie’s potential and its reality is jaw droppingly enormous.

Apparently SA is about to get an anti-corruption body with teeth. Perhaps we could merge with them?

Posted by Moriarty on 13/12/11 at 12:59 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.